Philip Davies: I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for that U-turn on those court charges. I understand why the Government were so keen to stop local readers of newspapers from accessing the information that court sentences are now so pathetically lenient. I hope that he will give a commitment to ensure not only that reports will be free from now on, but that they will stay free for ever?

Mary Creagh: In March, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), announced that she would be rejecting the recommendations of a two-year study by the Law Commission. It recommended reforming the law to offer protection for cohabiting couples, as has happened in Scotland. Given that there are 2 million cohabiting couples in England and Wales, and that, commonly, they believe the misconception—the fallacy—that there is such a thing as common law marriage, what protections does she offer mostly vulnerable women and their children on the breakdown of cohabiting relationships?

Jack Straw: I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has raised. It is a concern not only to members of the Muslim community, but to members of the Jewish community. In Greater Manchester, the coroners, led by the Bolton coroner, have developed a good local protocol that means that, in cases that are regarded as forensic, relatives can choose post mortem by MRI scanner, rather than by intrusive post-mortem methods. That ensures that the post mortem is much swifter and can be quickly followed by certification and burial. I am in discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice) about how we can see that practice rolled out across the country.

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend touches on an important point—how we benefit from the processes. That has not been particularly well thought through, not least because of the absence of, for instance, the great bed-watch campaigns that the old community health councils could collectively inspire. Indeed, the second of the three areas that I was discussing in relation to amendment No. 8 and our concerns, which remain unaddressed but have been part of the debate that has led us to this point, was monitoring the trends. For a regulator, local or national trends revealed through complaints can be a useful bellwether—precisely the point made by my hon. Friend—in directing its inspection activity. The amendment, however, fails to establish a mechanism for the monitoring of complaints trends at national level—as did the old bedwatch campaign, until it was summarily scrapped.
	The Minister told the Committee:
	"It will be very important that the ombudsman works very closely with the Care Quality Commission if he or she identifies a pattern of complaints that is worthy of closer inspection and investigation." ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2008; c. 347.]
	I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted amendments that would have included that in the Bill.
	As for the third area—the supporting of complaints by social care users—the Bill does nothing to address the disparity in access to such support between publicly and privately funded individuals. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), said in Westminster Hall
	"it is unacceptable that self-funders should not have the protection that other residents have".—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 11 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 52WH.]
	In September, he told the radio programme "File on 4" that he would achieve that through legislation. Given the limited scope of the amendment, can the Minister confirm that the Government are reneging on that commitment? If they are not, where is the legislation promised by his equally senior colleague, and when will we see it?
	We welcome Lords amendment No. 14, which should provide further protection for two groups of people whom I hesitate to bracket together—soldiers and prisoners. Members will be familiar with the countless stories of our brave armed forces personnel being treated alongside the civilian population in what are sometimes unacceptable circumstances. As for prisoners, they have some of the worst health—particularly mental health—in the country, and it is right that they should be protected. I am, however, concerned about the scope for the CQC's powers of entry to be limited
	"in the interests of national security".
	What assurances do we have that the power will not be used to cover up poor practice or poor Government policy? Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to appoint inspectors who are security-cleared for such circumstances. I appreciate that that may be a problem, but what checks and balances are there on the exercise of executive power?
	Lords amendment No. 31 defines
	"health care commissioned by a Primary Care Trust"
	and
	"adult social services commissioned by an English local authority"
	as
	"health care provided by other persons pursuant to arrangements made by the Trust"
	and
	"adult social services provided by other persons pursuant to arrangements made by the authority"
	respectively. Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 require the CQC to conduct periodic reviews of health and social care "provided or commissioned" by PCTs and local authorities respectively.
	Can the Minister confirm that that phrasing, which seems to have a certain ambivalence, commits the CQC to periodic reviews of commissioning as well as of commissioned services? I do not understand how "services commissioned by" can mean the same as the process of commissioning. One of the aims of amendments tabled by Conservatives in both Houses during the Committee stages was to give the CQC power to inspect commissioning itself, not just commissioned services. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats tabled amendments in almost exactly the same terms and for similar purposes.
	Anna Walker told the Committee during oral evidence:
	"you have to look at a mixture of commissioning and provision; at what the primary care trusts are doing, as well as what the provider is doing. We would like to see that power for the wider review cover commissioning as well as provision." ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 17, Q25.]
	The Healthcare Commission's annual health check for 2008-09 will assess PCTs on the quality of their commissioning.
	I remain concerned about the fact that the powers of the CQC seem to be limited to the registration and inspection of health care rather than involving broader health issues. As the Minister will recall, Anna Walker said in her evidence to the Committee, in response to a question from me,
	"we are very perturbed that at the moment the administration requirements explicitly exclude catching work on health, as opposed to healthcare ... we believe ... that people's health needs to be looked after as well as their health care ... The registration requirements explicitly say that they cannot bite on public health issues, only on healthcare issues." ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 12, Q12-13.]
	That was in relation to clause 90. Anna Walker raised that issue as far back as September 2007. She told the  Health Service Journal:
	"People who look after healthcare are really important in looking after health. Although regulation is not the only player in this it is a very useful lever to improve public health."
	I ask the Minister to confirm why the NHS chief executive, who added some evidence in relation to that matter, is content with those proposals, particularly as regards public health.
	On 2 August last year, the  Financial Times stated that
	"a battle had broken out"
	between David Nicholson, the NHS chief executive, who sees the PCTs as part of his management empire, and Anna Walker, who said that there must be
	"a mechanism for holding people publicly accountable"
	for the quality of purchasing. During the Committee stage, the Minister said that performance assessment of PCT commissioning "was provided for" in the Bill under the special reviews regime, and would not accept our amendments to clause 42. If this provision delivers the power of periodic review of commissioning, I am glad that he has listened to us.
	Lords amendment No. 17 removes the power of the Secretary of State to modify documents of the commission which set out the frequency of reviews. Those documents would still require the Secretary of State's approval. Again, the amendment comes in response to amendments that we tabled in the Grand Committee, again supported by another party. That is a small victory in the Conservative crusade to have the CQC set up as an independent regulator, rather than one too often at the beck of the Secretary of State. Whether it turns out to be effective in practice, we wait to see. While the Secretary of State will not be able to "modify", he will presumably be able to withhold approval until he is happy with the document, amounting to the same thing.
	Likewise, I welcome Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which give the CQC a new power to refer matters of concern to the Secretary of State, and are the result of points made by my noble Friend Earl Howe in Grand Committee. They give the CQC a further power in its own right, separate from the Secretary of State. I only lament, once more, that the CQC is not independent enough.
	I welcome Lords amendment No. 23, which again removes the power of the Secretary of State to specify by order when the commission must publish programmes setting out the reviews, investigations and studies that it proposes to conduct. It is a further concession won in another place. Not only is it welcome as a further removal of the Secretary of State's control over the commission, but it is welcome as one less piece of legislation that will use up valuable parliamentary time. The 1950 Parliament put 720 pages of Acts and 2,970 pages of statutory instruments on to the statute book. Last year, the number of pages of new Acts totalled 4,609 and there were 11,868 new pages of statutory instruments. I just could not help referring to that, as it is so shocking.
	I am also pleased that amendment No. 26 removes the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the manner in which the new commission is to make and publish its plans for charging fees. It will be recalled that, although those elements to enhance the independence of the CQC are welcome, the Government have been unable to accept that it was appropriate to reconsider clause 2(4), which now seems rather out of place and which effectively enables there to be a Secretary of State override, as the commission must have regard to what the Secretary of State "may direct."
	Lords amendment No. 22 enables the Welsh Ministers and the commission to share information to support the efficient and effective discharge of their functions. Representing a constituency which shares a border with Wales, I am glad to see that provision included, because, while there is a political and administrative boundary, people on the ground want to use the service that is most convenient and effective for them: people from Flintshire coming to Chester, and people from the south-west corner of my constituency going to Wrexham Maelor and other such places. I also note that we were the only party with an MP representing a Welsh constituency in the Committee. As the measure applies to Welsh bodies, that was an important point, which we made in selecting those who served on the Committee. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether that amendment would allow me, representing my constituents who use services under the purview of Welsh Ministers, to gain the rights of audience that I should have with those Ministers on behalf of my constituents.
	It just so happens that a very upsetting constituency case has come across my desk today. Welsh Ministers have today decided to close a special needs children's home, just after an autistic Asperger's syndrome child had spent three months getting familiar with it. Today, with all his furniture moved into his new home, they have announced its closure, and he was due to arrive tomorrow morning. It has been the most desperate decision by Welsh Ministers in that case.
	I also note the scathing interim report from the Welsh Affairs Committee on cross-border health care. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that adequate data protection would be in place for such data sharing, and I hope that Welsh Ministers, English Ministers and the CQC will take seriously the four criteria that have been established: clinical excellence as close to home as possible, border-proofing of policy and practice, cross-border citizen engagement, and transparency and accountable co-operation between localities, regions and Governments.
	Amendment No. 67 would make a minor amendment to schedule 5 to reflect the fact that the Children and Young Persons Bill, which is referred to in the schedule, is not now expected to receive Royal Assent until after the Health and Social Care Bill does. There is nothing to be said on that amendment other than that it is terribly unfortunate that the Government Whips have failed so monumentally to timetable effectively a Government-sponsored Bill and have therefore got that out of kilter.
	Amendment No. 68 would allow Welsh Ministers to use any information obtained in exercising specified functions for the purposes of any of their other specified functions. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that data passed from English bodies to Welsh Ministers would be handled with the same level of security as they are by English bodies—which, admittedly, is not much under this Government. More important, will English bodies or individuals who are the subject of such data sharing, and their representatives, be given rights of appeal to Welsh bodies as regards that data?

Simon Burns: The Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury a perfectly valid and stock answer under the old regime. However, given that the Government have changed the regime in favour of transparency and have published a draft legislative programme, why can the Minister not define what the earliest possible moment is? Why can he not assure the House that it will be in the next Session of Parliament, as opposed to giving a vaguer answer—we would have expected that before the change to greater transparency?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 47.

Stephen O'Brien: I welcome the opportunity to debate this group of amendments. I am sorry that we did not receive any clarification on the health in pregnancy grant in another place. I must express my concern about amendment No. 48, and by extension, amendment No. 49. On the previous group of amendments, the Minister chose not to make any response whatever to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who made an outstanding contribution. I am sorry if we are delaying his teatime, but we hope to get some responses on this matter, as this is our last opportunity to get the Bill right.
	All the amendments now being proposed were initiated by the Opposition, supported by other Opposition parties, even as far back as the Committee stage in the House of Commons, but we are only now debating the proposals, to which the Government have at last acceded. The Government therefore have a serious duty not only to account for their conduct on the Bill but to ensure that the necessary clarifications are in place. They will have no further opportunity to do so, as no ping-pong is anticipated with this Bill.
	Amendment Nos. 48 and 49 will, as the explanatory notes somewhat euphemistically put it, allow the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
	"to share information to help develop and refine policies for pregnant women."
	Can the Minister clarify what kind of data he envisages being shared? This proposal seems to add further confusion to the health in pregnancy grant. I will not detain the House by rehearsing the important and extensive arguments that we had in Committee—columns 455 and following—or in the other place, which showed clearly how little thought the Government appeared to have put into this measure, how little evidence it was based on, and how desperately Ministers seemed to be covering up for the Prime Minister's ignorance, after he told the House from the Dispatch Box that nutrition was most important in the last months of pregnancy—Government reports confirm that that is not the case—and that this measure would combat that, for which there is little evidence.

Stephen O'Brien: I dare say that many of us would like to be a fly on the wall, if not in the Public Gallery, of the next PAC meeting when my hon. Friend will have a chance to put precisely that question. It will be interesting to hear what answer is given, in view of the expected responsibilities. It is extraordinary to find ourselves in this situation, not least when the health and pregnancy grant has been tested by having gone through such a lengthy process in both Houses. By his own admission, the Minister found much of the debate on that grant somewhat frustrating. We support it in principle, but we do so on the basis of evidence that it is indeed in the early weeks of pregnancy, and often the time before conception, that is most important for the health—in the broadest possible definition—and the health care of women either just pregnant or seeking to become pregnant. How that will be understood in the rather clinical world of the PAC, I do not know. Like my hon. Friend, I remain fascinated and I remain to be convinced.

Stephen O'Brien: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend, whose memory serves her well. I recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I must remain in order in speaking to amendments Nos. 48 and 49, but it is vital to try to find the basis on which this approach and the relevant amendments have been brought before the House, to explain where we are today. I recall what I thought was a rather inelegant parallel when it was said in Committee that Australia had had a similar scheme, which had perhaps rather unfairly been called the "plasma payment". It was being paid in the later stages of pregnancy, and rather than being spent on food and nutrition or vitamin supplements, it was used to buy wide-screen TVs. That was a most inappropriate use of something which was introduced for the ends that the Prime Minister is seeking to achieve. It was referred to when we were trying to understand the purpose of the health and pregnancy grant.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping us to recall what happened in Committee. Some of us who were a touch sceptical about the evidence sessions before they took place found that they helped a lot of us understand where the evidence that had inspired the Government to introduce the provisions might lie. That was particularly so in the case of the health and pregnancy grant. We all approached the grant in a benign way, with good will, because we wanted to see it happen.
	The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the grant must be appropriate. Where there are scarce resources, and in particular where extra resources are being made available, they should be targeted at those who can benefit most from that support. Pregnant women are clearly in that category. It is best that resources are well targeted to deliver the best benefit. The evidence we were seeking was where that best benefit would lie.
	Rather than castigating those who might be presumed to misuse the money, on the contrary, I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning)—I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard me—that I thought it rather rough and unfair for the payment in Australia to be termed the "plasma payment". This country should be better able to trust people to do the best for themselves if they are given the opportunity to do so with extra resources. That is precisely what I was seeking to ensure was being said in response to my hon. Friend.
	The big issue is that if there are scarce resources—if it is not possible to augment the payment proposed by the Government, who have identified what resources they are prepared to devote to the grant—we need to target them in the best way. The evidence does not suggest that it is best to put a nutritional opportunity at the tail end of a pregnancy, which is what the Prime Minister seemed to say when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and that was announced, in effect, by voting the money, or the intended money. Rather, the evidence suggests that it should be provided in the early weeks, and prior to conception. That is the beef; that is the argument. We are all trying to achieve nutritional and health improvements.
	I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are at odds on that. It was helpful that he intervened, because I have been able to make it clear that we are not in the business of castigating people. On the contrary, we want them to derive the best benefit from a potential opportunity. However, in the light of all the discussion, and the evidence to the contrary of what the Prime Minister sought to pray in aid, we believe that what is delivered in the Bill is still based on a false premise. We would be far better off using the evidence sessions, which were designed to help the Committee, to ensure that the best benefit is delivered in the early years and prior to conception.

Stephen O'Brien: Precisely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, again from her own experience. That was discussed at some length with the Minister in Committee. Although there was an absence of common cause on the malnutrition issue, we recognised, particularly in the health care setting, where there are some statistics one can get hold of, that it has been extraordinarily difficult to get the undernutrition, malnutrition, or inappropriate nutrition figures out of the social care settings, whether they are local authority, public sector or indeed private sector. Almost everyone knows that some people will arrive, whether it is into a social care setting or into a hospital setting, malnourished. It could be part of their condition. At the same time, the issue has been the rise in malnutrition among those who leave hospital.
	The thing about social care homes is that we do not have the same statistics— naturally, given that we are often dealing with the end of life—on people leaving to measure whether greater malnourishment has taken place. The weighing and measuring issues, which are addressed in the Bill, are important. Most of us remember from our childhoods that weighing and measuring were a natural first step in almost all interactions with the health or care services, not least in relation to health visitors. That is relevant to an earlier intervention on health and pregnancy. Such issues are vital to the future health of the people of our nation.

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. Interestingly, her two most recent interventions demonstrate how this point applies at all vulnerable stages of life, both in the early and later years. Some of us rather wish it might also apply in the middle stage, as then there would be some solution to the difficult problem of controlling weight.
	This is a serious issue. It is important that staff have knowledge and training, both in the care setting and in the hospital setting, where nurses are involved. They must recognise the importance of nutrition and have knowledge of it, and they must be able to monitor it. An appropriate amount of time must be available to care for people by ensuring that they eat regularly and eat the right things. People must be monitored for vital nutritional and vitamin values, particularly as an illness—or the condition of ageing—often means that digesting becomes more difficult.
	This is a human right, and we have been anxious to understand how that would have a direct bearing on Lords amendments Nos. 51 and 61. The  British Medical Journal figures that I recently gave reaffirm those provided by BAPEN's screening week, an initiative that the Government claimed to support. However, the Department of Health chose instead to describe the figures as,
	"hopelessly out of date or misinterpreted".
	That was a surprise. Furthermore, the Government's own figures, provided to me through a written parliamentary answer, showed that the number of under-nourished patients being discharged from hospital had risen by 84 per cent. since 1997. There has been a further discussion with the Minister on that point, and on what is described as an episode and how the percentages are reached. I acknowledge that there was some clarification of some of these statistics, but I believe that the Minister accepts that there is a vital issue here that must be considered. The question is whether the Lords amendments will be of assistance in respect of this prime example of a matter that is seen as a health issue but is in fact best described as a human rights issue. To do so enables us to define people's entitlement, which in turn gives them rights. Rights confer power and are enforceable, whereas people have their health and care opportunities handed down to them from on high.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman raises a further complication. Again, if everyone were fully paid for by the state, that complication would not arise, and that is the direction in which we want to move, but the Government will doubtless have to examine it.
	One Conservative Back Bencher talked about a lack of care in the health sector in general. Although this Government have increased spending on health by enormous sums, our spending levels remain considerably behind those of Germany and France. I believe that the latest figures show that France spends about 2.5 per cent. more of its gross domestic product on health than we do—that is equivalent to £50 million per constituency. If we had spent an extra £50 million per constituency on health in every one of the past 30 years, we would be in a rather different position. Resources are still not as plentiful in the British health service as they are on the continent of Europe—in Germany and France—in terms of scanners, nurses, beds and so on. I want us to move further in their direction, with even more generous funding for health than we have now.
	I want us to move towards the levels of funding in France and Germany. It is noticeable that in France one does not have to wait to see a doctor or to have an operation—I know from friends who live in France that that is the position. I want Britain to be like France; I do not want us constantly to pretend that the situation is much better than it is. It is not as good as it should be, even though it is a lot better than it was in 1997; we have made considerable progress since then. I urge my Front-Bench team to continue to press ahead with additional health service spending and to move towards the levels of expenditure in France and Germany. I am talking about not only the money, but the quality of provision that such funding will make possible.
	We will have this continuing problem with the Human Rights Act because of these anomalies in respect of self-funders. I have never supported the idea of self-funding or private care homes. We need proper funding and democratically accountable local care homes built into the community, where people are directly and permanently employed from the community. I am talking about people whose own relatives go to those care homes, as was the case in the care home in my constituency that I mentioned, which is now sadly closed., There was pressure from government to close a public sector care home because it did not have built-in, en suite facilities and all the other care home standards that the Government wanted. That care home has now gone, and the staff who worked in it have retired or moved on; that body of people who did such a wonderful job is no longer there. May I add that they were all solid trade unionists, belonging to my trade union, the GMB, and that some of them were even members of my party? They were wonderful people.
	That is the sort of care that I want, where people are community-based and there is accountability to the local authority. People should be publicly funded in proper, well-funded care homes that are free to all at the point of need. We are some way from having that, but when we do, the Human Rights Act will apply to all care home residents because they will all be in a relationship with the state in terms of their care. I have made these points before, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister does not mind hearing them again. I thank him for the progress on this issue and I will support the amendments.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), like the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), raised important points concerning the whole question of proscription and its implications. It is right that Parliament should scrutinise such important decisions. Even though this order will quite rightly go through the House unchallenged tonight, it is the scrutiny that Parliament gives to such orders and legislation that is so vital.
	Following the aftermath of what happened in New York and what happened in London just a few years ago, there is tendency to rush to make decisions and for Parliament to reflect on the consequences afterwards. I do not think that the Government have done that in this case, and I fully support what the Minister said about the organisation in question. In many cases, those of us who are not experts in this field—although I chair the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I do not regard myself as an expert on this matter—do not possess the kind of information and security intelligence that the Minister has. I accept what he says, therefore, and I take it on faith. It is a quiet Tuesday evening, there are not huge numbers of Members in the House, and the order will go through unchallenged by a vote, but the danger is that we will make a decision and look at the implications afterwards.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was right to talk about the draconian effects of proscription. As we can tell from the word itself, proscription cannot be anything other than the most serious judgment on the activities of a particular group. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who follows these matters more closely than I do because of his great constituency interests, is able to reel off information about Hezbollah, which I certainly did not know, concerning who sits on its councils and what they do. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire picked up the information that the organisation does not even have bank accounts, but transfers its money between various sister organisations. All of that adds to the weight of knowledge that we, as parliamentarians, have.
	My problem is not with the order, but with the implications that will become apparent long after it has been passed. The Minister knows about the issue of proscription, because I have raised it with him, and its effect on law-abiding citizens of this country who do not support the terrorist activities of organisations abroad, but believe in the wider cause. The example of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was raised, quite rightly, by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I have about 10,000 members of the Tamil community, and many Muslims, in my constituency, who would be very interested in what Hezbollah is doing in the middle east. I have many constituents who are concerned about the peace process. The problem for law-abiding British citizens who support the general cause, but do not support terrorist organisations, is what happens if they attempt to hold meetings or events that in some way deal with what is happening in the countries concerned, and Sri Lanka is an obvious example.
	I have been to events organised by the Tamils Forum, with the approval of the Metropolitan police, and subsequently, I received almost hysterical communications from the Sri Lankan high commissioner about my attendance at what Sri Lanka regards as terrorist events. Of course they were not; we do not support terrorism. But they are events that concern members of the British Tamil community, who will be affected by the general nature of proscription. That is why clarity is so vital when we are affecting the rights of British citizens. I am surprised to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, who is the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He is always very eager to talk about human rights, but should remember from his former profession as a lawyer that it is important to preserve the rights of individuals who are not supporters of such organisations, but somehow get caught in the wider net thrown around them because they attend or give at a charitable event, as the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire mentioned.
	On Saturday, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who leads for the Liberal Democrats on foreign affairs, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), who was a Conservative MP but is now independent, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is a member of the Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler) and the former Prime Minister of Kosovo were all at a meeting in Mitcham, attended by 40,000 members of the Tamil community, to talk about the situation in Sri Lanka. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), was not present, but had a letter read out at the event. The LTTE is a proscribed organisation, but the Tamil organisation is not. Police officers were there filming what was going on. I went up to a number of them, just to reassure them that nothing was out of order. The problem with orders of this kind is that they have implications far beyond what the Government intend—implications that affect law-abiding British citizens.
	The last time I attended such an event, I was told by the Metropolitan police that those in every organisation had to sign a piece of paper, invented just before the meeting, confirming that they would not carry out various activities there. I said, "How can you just produce this piece of paper? These are law-abiding British citizens. In my 21 years in Parliament, I have never heard of British citizens attending a meeting being made to sign pieces of paper about what will happen there in advance of it happening." My office was told by the police officer that this was now standard practice in view of the proscription that had been decided by Parliament. I did not know that; it was news to me that such forms had to be produced.
	In passing the order tonight, we need to understand what will happen to people who do not support the organisation in question, and who do not believe that terrorism is a means of getting justice in the middle east, but are caught up in the wider net described by other hon. Members—apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, who wants the Government to go even further. Other people are genuinely concerned about these issues. At the moment, there are 900,000 people of Arab origin living in the United Kingdom—individuals and extended families. Some have indefinite leave to remain, and some are British citizens. Many take part in different organisational activities to do with the middle east, and are concerned about what happens there. Where is the demarcation line for those people?
	My second point was just made to me, outside the Chamber, by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. I told him that I would be mentioning him in my speech, and he reminded me that the Government's original order to proscribe 25 organisations was unamendable. No Member could amend that list, so we could not raise concerns about the implications of the order for law-abiding constituents who did not support terrorism. They want to support the Government in all that they do, as in the excellent work they have done in the past 11 years in trying to suppress terrorism. We could not amend that order, however, and there has never been an opportunity for us to do so. Of course, in future, the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon or the Home Affairs Committee might look at the matter of proscription. However, as things stand, unless an order of this kind is brought before the House, there is no way in which we can scrutinise what the Government are doing in this area or offer fresh information about the implications that such actions have for law-abiding citizens.
	My next point is about challenging proscription. I raised it with the Opposition spokesperson and he rightly said that he wished to concentrate on other matters in his speech, but I hope that the House will consider the subject in future. When an organisation wishes to challenge proscription—the Government have recently lost a case in the courts; an order was passed a few weeks ago when the Government had to come to the House and implement the court's decision—there is no hard and fast, robust way in which to do that. I know that because a meeting was held with the former Home Secretary during which members of the Tamil community asked what they could do so that a distinction could be made between those who wished to pursue terrorist ends and those, like those members of the community, who did not, but wanted to speak about the genuine carnage and violence that is happening in parts of Sri Lanka and to return to the negotiating table, which was so vital to the progress of peace in that troubled and beautiful island. The then Home Secretary said that there were no procedures, rules or guidelines. All that an organisation had to do was write to the Home Secretary and that would trigger a look at proscription. If the request was turned down, people could go to court and there could be a judicial review, which is exactly what happened in the case of the People's Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran.
	Of course, we will go along with what is suggested tonight, because the Minister has presented us with persuasive arguments, as he always does when he introduces such measures. We are always willing to support the Government on such issues because they are so serious and the Government have much more information than we do. However, given that we are entering new territory and that the Government have been challenged in the courts and lost, at great expense to the taxpayer, may not we have some regulations or rules, or some sort of robust scheme whereby organisations can appropriately challenge the Government's decision without having to await such a discussion or an order such as the one that we are considering? May we have a mechanism whereby organisations can challenge and place evidence before the Government? I hope that the Minister will address that when he responds to the debate. What other way is there, other than writing to the Home Secretary and, when she says that the proscription cannot be lifted—I would be amazed if she wrote back and said yes to any of the organisations that she or her predecessors have proscribed—going to court? The recent case went through the High Court to the Court of Appeal and eventually to the highest court in the land. Do we have to do that every single time a Government decision is challenged?
	I urge my right hon. Friend, in balancing out what we are doing today, to consider a more robust scheme, which will enable us to make progress. If we do not, hysteria will grow about organisations and individuals such as members of the Tamil community. It is wrong to stigmatise a whole community, as some in the Sri Lankan Government have done. I welcome the Tamil community's actions in the past few years in politicising themselves and lobbying Members of Parliament. Tomorrow, that community has an exhibition in the House about what happens in Sri Lanka. That is the way for people to pursue their legitimate political grievances—through parliamentary democracy.
	I ask the Minister: please consider a more robust scheme that is fair to our citizens. We are talking not about people abroad, but about those who live here—British citizens or those with indefinite leave to remain—who pay taxes and vote for people such as the Minister, me and Opposition Members. Let us treat them with respect and ensure that we have a robust scheme, which enables people to challenge what they regard as an unfair law.

Michael Moore: I am grateful for this opportunity to present this petition on an issue that I have raised with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and to which I hope I will get a positive reply in due course.
	In a few short months, the Borders area that I represent will be the first region to see the switchover to digital television, and a brave new world in which 40 television channels and countless radio channels will be available to people in the area. Unfortunately, however, the many people who are not served by the main transmitter in Selkirk will not receive all the channels; they will receive only what is known as "Freeview Lite", which provides far fewer channels and a much poorer service. As a result, 2,500 of my constituents have prepared a petition that I wish to present to the House this evening:
	The Petition of those concerned about the extent Freeview services in the Borders as a result of digital television switchover,
	Declares that, in November 2008, the Borders will be the first region in the UK to make the switch from analogue to digital television. Many people in this area receive their television picture from a relay transmitter, but after switchover they will not receive all the available channels on Freeview. Instead, they will receive a much reduced service known as "Freeview Lite". Many channels enjoyed by viewers elsewhere will not be available to viewers who rely on relay transmitters for their television pictures.
	Further declares that this situation is unfair.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urgently review the impact of the digital television switchover on the Borders area and to take steps to intervene to prevent Borderers from missing out and ensuring that viewers in the Borders who currently receive their television signal from a relay are provided with all the Freeview channels after digital switchover.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000244]

Ann Coffey: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has campaigned on this issue for a long time. I am sure that the Minister will have heard his fervent plea.
	The draft Bill will simplify things by creating a single system for designation—to be called the heritage register—which will replace listing, scheduling and registering. However, the decision to designate will still be made on the basis of special architectural historic or archaeological interest.
	During consideration of this draft legislation, I would like other subsidiary criteria such as economic regeneration plans debated and taken into consideration before a recommendation is made to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a building to be designated or listed. Recent frustrating experiences in my own constituency of Stockport have led me to that view. May I make it clear that I am not making any criticisms of the individuals involved? I would like to thank Henry Owen-Jones from English Heritage for his help. The criticisms that follow are of the system itself.
	Those experiences have made me believe that the designating of buildings should be more specific and spell out exactly what should be retained in any future developments. For example, clear descriptions of the materials to be used would enable future developers to tie down and contain costs and know from the beginning exactly what was required of them and how much it would cost. That would prevent expensive proposals from emerging at a later stage, often during informal pre-application discussions with English Heritage, which can severely hold up building projects or indeed jeopardise them altogether.
	As I have explained, my interest in this whole issue arose out of tensions between heritage and regeneration in a multi-million pound development of Stockport college's town centre campus in respect of one particular building. The new campus is to be on the site of the old St. Thomas's hospital, the buildings of which have fallen into disrepair since the hospital was closed. The building in question, called merely "building 25", was not a listed building, but because it fell within the curtilage of the principal listed structure, it was regarded as listed. It was attached to a listed building.
	The problem was that English Heritage wanted to keep building 25, but Stockport college did not want to keep it. The college did not think it had any value for its vision of a 21st century educational facility and believed that its retention would compromise the design of the front aspect of its new college campus. As the building was riddled with asbestos, restoration would add further expense to the project. The college had already spent £11.217 million on the refurbishment of listed buildings as a result of pre-planning meetings with English Heritage. As the cost of refurbishment of listed buildings is 16 per cent. higher than the cost of new build, the excess costs were £1.53 million. The college did not want building 25, and the proposed alternatives of boarding it up or selling it were not ones that the college considered to be viable.
	The college recognised the historical significance of the two listed buildings, but felt that building 25 detracted from the overall scheme. The frustration for the college was that it was always trying to discuss matters against a background of historical significance, irrespective of cost to its budget or the need to cater for 21st century learners.
	From a heritage point of view, the college was keeping the best of the site, spending a lot of money on buildings that had hitherto been left to decay with little or no interest from anyone. It was also bringing a £55 million regeneration scheme to Stockport and simply could not go on investing in buildings for which it had no use and that it felt would serve no educational purpose.
	English Heritage first advised Stockport council that it wanted to keep building 25 during pre-application advice meetings, and argument went on for months. The college spent £145,032 preparing a case for demolition, employing specialists in this field and commissioning architectural surveys to respond to English Heritage's aspirations for the site as a whole. The college purchased the site in March and the estimated delay, due to the involvement of English Heritage, is likely to be 12 months.
	The whole affair has added other costs to the project, including £37,500 in staff time and £117,000 in interest costs. It also had a major consequence for the college's cash flow as it delayed Learning and Skills Council approval and the subsequent grants by almost a year. Ironically, English Heritage did not in the end formally object to the planning application submitted by the college, which involved the demolition of building 25.
	From my involvement, which included several meetings with English Heritage, the Government office for the north-west and council officers, it became clear to me that if a building is listed but alongside that listing there is no description of the work that has to be done to preserve its heritage aspects, the developers cannot possibly know the costs that they might incur and, even worse, those costs will become clear only from advice by either local conservation officers from the council or the local representative from English Heritage. That organisation, of course, will be concerned to improve the heritage aspects, but doing so does not come out of its budget; every helpful piece of advice usually costs somebody else money.
	The other difficulty, of course, is that it is not often clear to the recipient of the advice from English Heritage what the status of the advice is. It was clear from my involvement that the college was certainly under the impression that English Heritage was able to exercise some kind of veto on the planning application if its advice were not accepted. That, of course, is not the case. I think there is a need for a much more transparent process for striking a balance between heritage and the need to make buildings fit for the purpose for which they are developed. If, when buildings were listed, the listing were accompanied by descriptions of features that had to be retained, together with acceptable materials for restoration, developers would have a clearer idea of the costs.
	In arriving at such descriptions, some regard needs to be paid to the future use of the building. For example, it is important that we provide affordable housing, but if old buildings are to be converted to flats, every extra cost imposed to meet heritage standards will affect the affordability of the housing. I understand the value of heritage, but it is also important to make buildings fit for purpose in the coming century, so we need an approach to heritage and the listing of buildings that takes that into account.
	I was also concerned that money intended for further education and other public services was being disproportionately spent on buildings that had no national significance, although they had local listings, and, indeed, on buildings that were not themselves listed, but were attached to listed buildings. I do not think it right that money intended for educating young people should be spent on heritage, and there is a case to be made for having separate heritage budgets that can support such restoration work.
	I am also convinced of the need for such a separate budget by another example in my constituency that involves the derelict St George's Church of England vicarage and St. George's Church of England primary school, which are both grade II listed buildings. The Victorian vicarage is set in a large garden and has been disused since 2001; it is boarded up because it has major disrepair and structural problems—for example, there is no staircase. Groups of children are trespassing and lighting fires inside, endangering both themselves and the surrounding area—a cause of continual complaints to the local police.
	The school and the church diocese want to demolish the vicarage to make space for a much-needed green playing field. At the moment, the pupils have just a concrete playground. However, the conservation officer at Stockport council has told the church vicar that the vicarage windows or doors cannot be broken up or demolished because they are part of a conservation area and English Heritage would object, so we are stuck with a derelict, rotting building that nobody wants, can use or indeed, can properly conserve. That is another example of advice being given at an informal level. The consequences of such advice can be far-reaching. Of course, the Church could put in a planning application that involves demolishing the vicarage, but it is not clear that people understand that this is an option. There is a sense, however unreal, that English Heritage has an automatic veto.
	Meanwhile, the school building itself is in need of some repairs. For example, the roof tiles have recently needed to be replaced. The school governors were told that they had to use a specific quality and colour of slate, and it turned out that the right tiles could be obtained at great expense only from Vermont in the United States. Again, on what basis was that advice given? Where is it said that only those particular tiles could be used? Why should this school use money that was intended for education to buy expensive tiles for something that nobody can see, simply because the building is listed? Surely, when listed buildings are being used, there need to be clear agreements about how the building is to be maintained. The advice should be more transparent, and it should take into account affordability for the user. These sorts of extra hidden costs can come as a shock and can jeopardise the finances and, in some cases, the continuation of projects.
	Three lessons have been learned from the examples of Stockport college and St. George's. First, the criteria for listing buildings should be widened, and more consideration should be given to wider economic and regeneration issues in the listing or designating of buildings. That is particularly important in inner-city and town-centre developments. Secondly, if buildings are listed, the listing should specify exactly what features any future developers would be expected to retain, together with descriptions of the acceptable materials to be used. Thirdly, there should be a separate heritage budget to support such restoration work so that money intended for educating young people, for example, is not diverted away. English Heritage has a statutory obligation to give advice, but with ever more complex applications involving millions of pounds of investment, we need to look again at the process of listing and the balance between heritage, the extent to which developments are fit for purpose and how those decisions are made.
	The right balance has to be struck between the future and the past. Many hon. Members will have examples of derelict boarded-up buildings in their constituencies which have stood vacant for years and which no one can afford to renovate. They are not being conserved at all but just being allowed to decay. Is it not ironic that the listing itself may be a deterrent to development and may lead to decay and eventual demolition of a building that is so significant that it was listed for preservation? However, unless some account is taken of the possible use of a building in the application for listing, I cannot see how the Bill in its current form is actually going to achieve its objectives of preserving our heritage.
	Buildings stand not in the past but in the present. They carry the heritage of the past, but they will not survive unless they can meet the aspirations of the future. Not all can become perfectly preserved museums. They have to be schools, houses or new offices. The process of listing buildings should take account of that, both in the application and when listed.

Fraser Kemp: I, too, will not detain the House for long, but I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing the debate, which is relevant to the draft Heritage Protection Bill.
	I believe that the listing process has, in principle, been very advantageous in guaranteeing the protection of many of our industrial sites. I agree that it should be brought up to date, but I think that without it many parts of Britain would be much poorer. I feel that heritage is important, and like other Members I actively promote it because if its economic benefits. However, there are other stronger, deeper reasons why we promote heritage.
	My constituency is not one that the uninitiated would automatically assume had a range of listed buildings, but it has many, which people might find surprising. A lot of those buildings tend to be industrial. There is the Washington "F" Pit museum; Washington old hall, the ancestral home of George Washington; and Penshaw monument, which was built to commemorate Lord Lambton, or Radical Jack as he was known because of his support for the 1832 Reform Act. There are many examples in the constituency where listing has helped.
	It would be remiss of me not to mention the brave campaign of the Ryhope allotment holders, who a decade ago won listed status for their pigeon cree—the world's only listed pigeon cree. We use the term "cree" in the north-east, but many will know it as a loft. The honourable Tony Banks, a former Member of the House who is no longer with us, supported and secured that listing. I dread to think what would have happened to that early example of a pigeon cree without it.
	There has been tremendous support for the cree. The men were particularly heartened on Christmas eve when they held a vigil in support of the pigeon cree, and the Prime Minister congratulated them on the 10th anniversary of its having received listed status. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport visited earlier this year and met the men involved. Last week, I received a letter with American stamps on. When I opened it, I found it was from a Hollywood superstar and his wife, who had appeared in panto in Sunderland and had read about the Christmas eve vigil that we held with local children to support the cree. That letter was from Mickey and Jan Rooney, who are still going strong and who are of a ripe old age. They wrote to me, and via me to the men, to say how much they supported the campaign and that they would be more than keen to do anything that they could to help.
	I have given those examples for a reason. In what is a fast-moving world, particularly for young people, listing and our industrial heritage provide a compass point. There are fewer and fewer things that unite us, because it is a disparate world that we live in. Heritage is incredibly important, not just for the physical representation but for what that physical representation means.
	People see the winding gear at Washington "F" as a symbol. The pit heaps and other traces of our industrial past may have gone, but what lives on through communities is the sense of comradeship and belonging, and the values that were strong in years gone by. That is why I support the Bill that is coming before the House.
	There has been an explosion of interest in heritage. It has been great to see locally that miners' banner groups have been formed in Washington and Herrington Burn and are putting on displays. Local people are getting involved. A local school is celebrating its centenary: last week, I visited the John F. Kennedy primary school, where local children have worked with pupils who attended the school in the 1930s and they have all come together to support their heritage. Heritage is important as it can give us that sense of community. In many ways, changes in society mean that we do not always have as strong a sense of community as we had in the past.

Margaret Hodge: We often have very good debates on the Adjournment and the contributions of all hon. Members tonight have been very important. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing the debate. I formally acknowledge in the House the excellent work that she does on behalf of her constituency, both in the constituency itself and in representing her constituents' interests in Parliament. I have discussed with her informally on a number of occasions the issues that she has raised formally during the debate. I am pleased that she has been able to put her concerns on the record. We have a draft Heritage Protection Bill, which the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is currently considering, and I hope that it will take into account the comments of the Members who have spoken—none of whom serves on the Committee—when making its representations to Ministers as we take the Bill forward.
	Let me begin by endorsing what my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) said. Like him, I firmly believe that, at its best, conserving our heritage, including our industrial heritage, is crucial to building strong communities. Sometimes the best of community spirit comes out of celebrating and understanding our past, and of using that to reflect the values of the present and to inform how we think about the future. Heritage, at its best, has a very important role to play in building identity, cohesion, a sense of community and strong communities.
	Every city, town and village in our country is made up of a collection of buildings that portray how it has evolved over time. There is a duty on all of us in government to make a list of those buildings that are of special architectural and historical interest. The way in which we designate them is intended to allow the planning system—we will come on to whether or not it works—to protect the buildings and to enable the management of our heritage to be carried out in such a way as to ensure that we leave a legacy for future generations that reflects the strength of our past.
	I want to pick up on various issues raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), but with particular reference to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. She talked a lot about the transparency of the system. She then talked about our having a clearer understanding of, on the one hand, the roles and powers of English Heritage, with its responsibilities for listing and the listing system, and on the other hand, local authority planning departments and officers and what they have to do within the planning framework. She also talked about the importance of English Heritage giving a clearer indication, when it lists, of the implications of listing—the features that would need to be listed and retained, and matters on which it would have a view and on which listed building consent to alter the building would be required. She talked about the importance of subsidiary criteria to which English Heritage should have regard in listing decisions—not just the statutory criteria, which are those of special architectural and historical interest, but also the wider economic and regeneration implications of listing. Finally, she talked about whether we should have a separate heritage budget so that the costs of protecting our heritage are much clearer. I would like to deal with each of those points.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has talked to me at length outside the Chamber about the issues that his constituency faces. He will understand that the hospital issue is currently under consideration, but I will say to him that I have asked that the relevant health authorities also have the opportunity to put in their representations so that I can balance them against the representations of English Heritage. He raised a number of issues that I shall address. One is the importance of marine heritage assets. We address that issue in the draft Heritage Protection Bill, and I agree with him that we will want to bring the management of those assets into the more coherent framework that we are attempting to establish through the Bill.
	Such an approach will allow proper protection and celebration of those assets, which are important in Britain, given that it is an island and is thus surrounded by a lot of sea. I believe that 12 miles of sea is in the ownership of the Crown, so we have to employ a complicated mechanism to ensure not only that the Crown takes its proper responsibilities, but that it is properly compensated for any work that it has to do in protecting marine heritage assets. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that we are examining the whole issue of marine heritage assets and how we can best ensure, in this radical review of how we manage all our heritage assets, that such assets will also get their proper place in the ecology of our heritage.

Margaret Hodge: I am grateful to you, Mr .Deputy Speaker, for drawing my attention to that point. I certainly want to swim, not sink. I am slight danger, on this territory, of not yet being totally familiar with the content of the draft Marine Bill, but it is my job, as the Minister responsible for taking the draft Heritage Protection Bill through the process of consideration by both Houses of Parliament, to ensure consistency.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also mentioned the importance of democracy in how we consider whether we should list assets for future generations. I agree with him that, on the face of it, we consider such things in a very democratic way; anybody can ask English Heritage to consider whether to list a particular building. Interestingly, the owner of a building need not be informed that such an application has been made, and, therefore, that the process of considering whether or not to list has been undertaken.

Margaret Hodge: I agree entirely. I cannot find the words in my notes, but at present one cannot have regard to the fact that there are a number of old fire stations, and that preserving and listing a few would be sufficient for ensuring that future generations could enjoy our current structures.
	My hon. Friend talked about the way in which common sense appears to go out of the window in the listing system, and he gave the example of two buildings in his constituency. I have had to deal with watchtowers in a number of constituencies across England in the past few months. I wonder whether, when derelict buildings become heritage assets, there is a point at which we perhaps take the wrong view.
	Let me help with a few facts. There are 2,000 applications every year to list, and 30,000 applications each year for listed building consent. There are only 100 cases a year in which alterations to listed buildings are agreed and buildings are demolished. The system is very slow. English Heritage tries to make a decision within six months, but the process can take longer. As all hon. Members have said, seeking listed building consent is also extremely slow—but there are reasons for the delay. The planning guidance states:
	"once lost, listed buildings cannot be replaced; and they can be robbed of their special interest as surely by unsuitable alteration as by outright demolition."
	I hope that the new system will speed up consideration. We are cutting out the duplication, so English Heritage will make the decision. I hope that the process will be much more transparent, that the owners will be notified and that there will be a much better description, in much more accessible language, of what is being listed and why. That would help. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, I undertake to look further at how we can improve transparency. I will write to her about that.
	My hon. Friend talked about the separate roles of those with responsibility for listing—that is, English Heritage representatives—and those who give planning permission for listed building consent. We need to improve the professional and public understanding of those separate roles. I undertake to consider that and see what further work I can do, and I shall come back to my hon. Friend. English Heritage has the information, and I agree with my hon. Friend that in the interests of transparency it should be able to provide it.
	We are in much more difficult territory in respect of the criteria for listing. At present, there is a hierarchy of criteria. The statutory criteria relate to historical and architectural interest, and, as we have said, there is no discretion on selectivity. Beneath that lies the planning policy guidance note, which we are reviewing; we will see whether we can have regard to some of the issues raised tonight. Beneath that, English Heritage has introduced selection guides, which provide the technical information demonstrating the features that need to be considered. Again, we can look at that.
	However, if hon. Members wish, as they have suggested, to try to alter the statutory criteria, they will need to do so through the process of considering the Heritage Protection Bill. I have to say that that idea would be highly contentious for many other stakeholders in the heritage world. However, this conversation between parliamentarians and that world is important and needs to take place.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of separate accounting. That is pretty difficult, but I have great sympathy with the motivation for it. Why should money set aside for education facilities be used to protect heritage assets? My hon. Friend's request is fraught with practical difficulties, but I shall have a look at it and come back to her. This debate has been really interesting. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I draw my comments to a close.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Nine o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 14 July 2008: In column 106, delete "Knight, rh Mr. Greg" and insert "Knight, Jim".